Tammy Duckworth at the World War II Memorial |
Tammy Duckworth was born to be an
American soldier. Her ancestors
fought in the Revolution, World War II and in Vietnam. She entered the ROTC program in graduate
school in 1990 at the age of 22. In the
Illinois National Guard, she chose to become a helicopter pilot because it was
one of the few combat positions open to women.
In 2004 she flew over 120 combat hours in Iraq. But on November 12th of that year,
while flying over the Tigris
River valley, a
rocket-propelled grenade fired by insurgents hit
her helicopter directly below her seat.
Her legs were blown off and her right arm was terribly damaged. During her lengthy and painful recovery, she
never lost her spirit
and her optimism; she learned to walk on prosthetic legs, and she even hoped
to return to her pilot duties. She
didn’t fly again, but she did become a champion of veterans, helping to create
a rehabilitation center for wounded veterans and serving as Director
of the Illinois Department of Veteran Affairs and the Assistant
Secretary of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs for the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs. She is
presently a member of the United States House of Representatives from the 8th
district of Illinois. Her determination,
professionalism, patriotism, courage, and dedication to duty should make every
American proud. She is a genuine hero.
She recently received attention
for her amazing verbally beat-down of a veteran’s benefit cheat. On June 26, Duckworth sat on the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as it questioned businessman
Braulio Castillo as part of its ongoing investigation into whether Castillo had
obtained a $500 million IRS contract because of his personal friendship with an
IRS
deputy director. But what caught
Duckworth’s attention was that the IRS had assigned Castillo’s company that lucrative
contract as part of a program of contracts set aside for firms owned by disabled
veterans. Castillo’s claim to disabled
veteran status was that he twisted
his ankle playing football for a military prep school in 1984. That’s it; there’s
no more to it. Castillo dropped out
of that prep school after less than a year and subsequently went on to
quarterback his college football team.
He never served
in the military in any capacity and he waited 27 years to make an official
claim of any lasting physical injury. An
obscure regulation allows him to be treated as a veteran, since he received his
“disability” at a military school. But
he is the Holy
Roman Empire of bureaucratic classification: a disabled veteran who is neither
disabled nor a veteran (nor much of a human being). So Duckworth, as seen in this amazing
video, just tears him apart. She
reads from a letter Castillo wrote to the Veterans Administration explaining
his condition: “These are crosses that I bear due to my service to our great
country and I would do it again to protect this great country.” Duckworth’s follow-up is a masterpiece of
outrage and sarcasm: “I’m so glad that
you would be willing to play football in prep school again to protect this
great country,” she mocks. “Shame on you, Mr. Castillo. Shame on you. You may
not have broken any laws but you certainly broke the trust of this great
nation. You broke the trust of veterans.”
Watch the video and you will be gratified to see a genuine hero smack
down a callous fraud.
Duckworth is a genuine hero, even a
righteous hero, but did I mention that she’s also a liberal Democrat? That shouldn’t matter in this case, and the
vast majority of conservative commentators have either supported
Duckworth
in
this instance or ignored the matter entirely. But there is a small minority of
conservatives who actually have defended Castillo and condemned Duckworth. Consider a writer from the hard conservative
website RedState with the pen-name streiff, whose post on
Castillo’s shaming calls Duckworth a “Political
Hack, Professional Victim, Schoolyard Bully”. He spins like a top to avoid applauding
Duckworth and condemning Castillo. First
he blames the system:
These special carve-outs in contracting laws are wrong on every conceivable level, other than creating a feel good moment for the Congress, and one can no more be shocked, surprised, and upset when they are manipulated than one should be shocked, surprised, and upset when you are hit by a car when walking across the freeway.
So Castillo has no personal
responsibility here, he’s merely the victim of overpowering liberal government
temptations. But, somehow, that same evil
liberal government must not be questioned: “Regardless of what ‘Doctor’
Duckworth might think of Mr. Castillo’s injuries, the facts are that he applied
for the disability rating and the VA granted him that rating. She doesn’t get a
vote on it and no one should lionize her for her asshattery.” So even a democratically-elected, badly-disabled,
war-hero congresswoman shouldn’t express her anger when someone tries to steal benefits
meant for genuine veterans? The VA rules
were handed down from on high, those rules have spoken and we can only submit. We can be sure that the fair-minded Mr.
streiff would just as categorically defend welfare cheats and frauds. According to his genuinely
wearing-your-ass-as-hat logic, if a government program follows its own rules
then its results can never be questioned.
Anyone who does so is merely being a “hack” and a “bully”; they can’t
possibly be a responsible public servant rightly condemning dishonesty and
policing a public program. It’s
fascinating that such a self-proclaimed and such a self-congratulatory “firm
believer that the government is our servant not our master” makes such an absolutist
and appalling argument for submitting without question to those same government
masters.
And he shamelessly misrepresents
the cause of Duckworth’s anger: “Duckworth
took umbrage at the fact that Mr. Castillo has a VA awarded service connected
disability rating of 30%.” Actually,
no. She “took umbrage” because Castillo
lied about his condition, wasted the VA’s time and resources and received gobs
of IRS money that was supposed to go to actual disabled veterans. Watch the video and that is utterly
clear. She just used Castillo’s 30%
rating to make her larger point: Castillo gamed the system without regard for
actual veterans.
But streiff must know all that –
it’s all there in the video included in his piece! So why does he twist himself up into such
ridiculous logical pretzels to avoid the truth?
Conservatives constantly speak of “personal responsibility”, but
Castillo should not be held responsible.
Government is our servant, but we must obey it without question. It doesn’t matter if Castillo “gamed” or
“defrauded” the system. Really? It’s not relevant? Why does streiff recoil in such horror from that
most conservative verbal instrument: the moral harangue? He abandons all his conservative principles
in his desperate need to avoid what even most conservatives find obvious:
Duckworth’s condemnation of Castillo is exactly the sort of moral clarity that
our political discourse is crying out for and she’s just the person to do it. It would easy to dismiss streiff’s piece as
pure partisan misrepresentation, just a shamelessly dishonest attack – particularly
from a website
and a writer that have in the past
attacked Duckworth and defended her Republican opponent. Clearly, that is part of what’s going on, but
I believe there is something more: blinkered inability to accept a liberal
Democrat as a moral authority.
In streiff’s world only
conservatives are allowed the moral harangue, because only conservatives are
moral in essence. Obviously, there are
liberals who believe that liberals are moral in ways that conservatives are
not. And – as the Duckworth episode
shows – most conservatives are easily capable of seeing moral authority in
non-conservatives. But the essence of
modern American conservatism consists of these notions: that all issues are
moral issues, that all social and political problems can only be addressed by
the sufficiently forceful application of simple moral principles, that only morally
correct individuals have both the moral clarity and the moral strength to
impose those principles, and that moral correctness is itself an essential part
of an individual. Put simply, only a
good man knows what’s good. To the kind
of moral simpleton such as streiff whose ideology is unqualified by any
pragmatism or generosity – that is, to a constricted and thoughtless
conservative – moral correctness and conservatism are the same thing. To be a liberal is to have a blemished and
polluted soul and no such degenerate can possibly be a moral authority. Nothing can redeem a liberal, not love of
country, not love of her fellow soldiers, not courage in face of unimaginable
pain and suffering. All of these are superficialities,
distractions from the underlying evil essence that every liberal soul bears
like the mark of Cain.
Tom, nice post! Although, sort of shooting fish in a barrel, no? Anyhow, the one thing I might take exception to:
ReplyDelete"But the essence of modern American conservatism consists of these notions: that all issues are moral issues, that all social and political problems can only be addressed by the sufficiently forceful application of simple moral principles, that only morally correct individuals have both the moral clarity and the moral strength to impose those principles, and that moral correctness is itself an essential part of an individual."
I'd say that's an overly broad statement. Conservatism has its factions and while your description might fit a certain sub-group, you've got your corporate welfare types that are nearly amoral, libertarians (yes, often very moralistic, but not the way you mean above), and so on.
But, all in all, good stuff. Keep it coming.